The many vague, and poorly thought up economic policies of the far left.

[tstorm823]

What concern are we left with? You're saying this system is so awful because some parents are choosing to insure their kids, and you think this is bad because the kids might not care about it? And this is the ACA's fault for... giving the parents the option?

My primary concern here is you and Agema understanding the situation. I'm not pleading for it to be repealed, I'm reasonably certain that would have minimal impact at this point.

Like, to speak well of it, I like the rule change for pre-existing conditions. Health insurance rejecting sick people is just a con. But requiring insurances to cover them would raise premiums for everyone, that's just the only way the math works profitably. And raising prices with no other change would drive people out who would rather save their money, exactly the people you don't seem to think exist. Which is why the mandates were made, to make sure there were people contributing more than they received to support those who cost more than they pay.

I appreciate the intent of the law, though would prefer a system not based in insurance rather than codify the insurance based status quo. I would like for you to also understand the ACA for what it is.

 

[Agema]

If that were Agema's entire post, you're spot on, I'd be putting my entire argument on tiny semantics that he didn't necessarily say, but oh boy it isn't:

You are achieving little here but trying to look for a consolation prize. You have been nailed. Busted.

 

[tstorm823]

You are achieving little here but trying to look for a consolation prize. You have been nailed. Busted.

Are you still here?

 

[Silvanus]

My primary concern here is you and Agema understanding the situation. I'm not pleading for it to be repealed, I'm reasonably certain that would have minimal impact at this point.
[...]
I would like for you to also understand the ACA for what it is.

Then why all the nonsense insinuating that people are taking out plans they don't want? Why the assumptions around who makes up the increase and whether they care or benefit? You went way beyond clarification, into arguments and assumptions you couldn't support. You corrected no factual mistakes.

I'll be frank: I think what really happened is that you didn't properly understand the employer mandate, and thought people were being obligated to take plans. Your entire position rested on the idea that all those newly-insured people don't want insurance and lose out financially from it-- and that position fell apart the moment it was clarified that all plans are still voluntary, and the dependents aren't paying for their own.

I appreciate the intent of the law, though would prefer a system not based in insurance rather than codify the insurance based status quo.

So would I. I'm firmly with Nye Bevan on the insurance principle. But such a reform is not imminent (due to both parties, but with much more staunch opposition from the Republicans), and the ACA makes such reform not one bit more difficult. In the absence of such a reform? Broader insurance is better than narrower.

 

[Agema]

Are you still here?

Yes, because of things like:

I would like for you to also understand the ACA for what it is.

Everyone here you are arguing against understands the ACA for what it is as well as they need to. In a vague, broad summary, a modest improvement to a poor base system. I'm not sure anyone on this forum thinks it was the best possible resolution to the USA's healthcare issue, and they've said so. However, it was at least practicable within political constraints.

Everyone here understands how insurance works. A similar concept works in universal healthcare via taxation that those who use services less subsidise those who use them more. I am not sure how thoroughly you have thought this through. If this concept of subsidy does not occur to some degree, it's an implicit call for individuals to endure impairment or death whenever treatment cost outstrips their ability to pay. Is that what you believe? Because I suspect not.

So inasmuch as you argue it was unfair to force people to pay to subsidise others... at an ideological level, I get this sentiment. Except that per the previous paragraph, this concept doesn't necessarily play out well if applied consistently. Plus, in a practical sense (and as previously mentioned), with the individual mandate scrapped, it turns out people were okay paying for the cover anyway once the ACA facilitated it, making it a moot point.

If you just fundamentally don't like healthcare insurance, the ACA merits no particular criticism. Insurance was the core system in the USA before and remains after.

 

[hanselthecaretaker2]

One of many issues involving California specifically -



Would he keep his word though? Ehh…

 

[Agema]

One of many issues involving California specifically -

Oh god. And I thought the question he was asked was waffly and overlong.